...holds great reverence for free speech...

Stay tuned for changes...

I remember the Bush twins (horror) having a drink in a college bar in a college town. The media and some liberal loons here on this site said some very terrible things about the girls as if they should be rushed off to detox and "re-educated" in the virtues of sobriety. They were kids for heavans sake. Now the MSM and the lefty loons want to say Michelle is not to be discussed? Forget about it. She is red meat. ww

There have been rude things said about Michelle Obama, and the people who are just looking to say vile things that have no basis should be denounced. However, Senator Obama has made no differentiation there. If he is calling criticism of her words "attacks" then he's much too thin-skinned to be running for president.

Cindy McCain has been particularly reviled by many and a good deal of it has been pretty cruel. The difference is that Cindy McCain has endured it gracefully and most of any campaigning she's done has largely consisted of introducing her husband at his appearances. She doesn't spend time bragging about the truly good things she's done and we'd hardly even know about any of it without the few members of the press willing to acknowledge it.

Another difference is the Obama's insistence on their private life remaining private even as they keep thrusting their family into the spotlight. You can't have it both ways. The McCain's private family life has remained pretty much private, which proves it can be so for the Obama's.

There has been much criticism I've heard of Michelle Obama for her words; not how she raises her kids, not her relationship with her husband, not about her family life. A lot of Obama's problem has been the press's fawning over their family. But if someone, wife or no wife, is going to stand in front of a crowd and make political pronouncements and campaign speeches, their words are fair game for scrutiny, criticism and discussion. If this is what he considers "attacks", he's just whining. Until he makes a distinction there, one can only wonder.

Oyster:

That's exactly how I feel about it; you put it into words better than I've been able to do. I try not to add, "me, too" comments, but I couldn't resist telling you how well you put it. Thank-you.

I guess the only thing I would add is if McCain makes the same mistake, then obviously he's fair game as well. I don't see that happening, however.

Hmm... If I delete Oyster's commment, then paste it into my article, pretending it was my own, would I get away with it?

J.

Crud, I think I said that out loud...

J.

MO is a shrill and she's ugly. Her talk of forced labor scares me, but then BO said I should be afraid of him. I know their black because they keep saying so, but their really pinkos.

"they're black" not "their black"
sorry. rented fingers and still on first cup of coffee.

She's still ugly.

if you delete&paste oysters comment J, I,ll never tell :)

She's ugly? You prefer the Laura Bush Stepford Botox look?

I know their black because they keep saying so, but their really pinkos.

I think it'll take more than a few cups of coffee to rinse the stooopidz out of your brain, friendo.

Twolaneflash, "ugly" is not a fair criticism. It's much like the vapid remarks about Hillary's ankles. It's childish. If words like yours were not part of the commentary it would be quite clear "what Obama meant".

Jay and Tom, I'm flattered :)

Hyperbolist -

Beauty is only skin-deep, ugly goes clear to the bone. I've been ripped off by attractive people who felt entitled to anything that came their way, whether it was earned or not. "Ugly" is a combination of a lot of factors for me - the external being of little importance.

As it is, judging by her remarks and comments and speeches, I agree with twolaneflash - she's pretty shrill and not attractive at all. She reminds me of a televangelist looking to get your money, trying to play on every emotion possible, but primarily trying to get you to take a long-distance guilt trip.

As far as color/race goes - If Obama were white and McCain 'black', I'd vote for McCain w/no hesitation. A few millimeters under the skin and we're all the same color. What's important is the ideas presented, and I just don't care for what Obama's trying to sell.

While I'm not condoning twolane's comment, Hyper, the Obama's meet the dictionary definition of "pinko" perfectly:

While I'm not condoning twolane's comment, Hyper, the Obama's meet the dictionary definition of "pinko" perfectly:

" a person who holds advanced liberal or moderately radical political or economic views"

So it makes me wonder which one of you is really "stoopidz". Actually, that's not true. I don't have to wonder at all...

If the Obama's are Black on the outside and Pink on the inside, what kind of fruit/food does it equate to?

Al Gore has Watermelon; black conservatives have Oreo's etc.

I'd go with burned steak, but that has no panache and I like steak.... Quite the conumdrum.

B Hussein Obama is not running for president. He and the left wing anti-americans are attempting to make him another 'King Hussein' and he will be as dangerous as the Hussein who met a rope. Like it or not, that's a fact.

"...I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." B Hussein Obama,

page 261 of his book, Audacity of Hope...

If you just get used to the double standard for African Americans and Mexicans these things won't bother you so much.

What double standard? They get to make fun of white people for doing quintessentially white things but you don't get to make fun of them for their cultural habis? That upsets you? Boo hoo.

Hey Scrapiron, if a bunch of torch-wielding lunatics like you decided to lynch a Muslim following (e.g.) another terrorist attack, it would be despicable if Barack Obama refused to stand with them. Even without context, the sentence you cherry picked from his book is totally innocuous, except to a senile bigot like you.

"You're running for president, Senator, not Pope or Messiah or God-Emperor. President of a democracy, that holds great reverence for the right of free speech."

Don't worry JT, if He wins, He'll fix that 'right of free speech' part.

*habits* -- duh

Hyper, our rage control issue Canadian. Can you comment without juvenile name calling? I don't think so. ww

What words would you use to describe Scrapiron, WildWillie? Super-patriot? Ubermensch?

The guy has been playing the same tune for years, and I see no reason whatsoever to address him respectfully. We might be born equals, but we obviously don't die as such.

You'll have to forgive Hyper, he projects a lot. (See 6b)

Did you have to look up the word to make sure you were using it properly? Or were you assuming your audience wouldn't know what it meant?

That's cool, though. Nice of people to stick up for Scrapiron, I guess.

With all due respect, I don't believe that either Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama should be off-limits for a number of reasons.

First, both of them are professional women, presumably with business contacts of their own and their own asset portfolios. At the very least, their business connections are worthy of scrutiny, as are their business holdings. Given their obvious connection to a future president, their conflicts of interest need to be explored or prevented.

And considering that we've seen a series of political spouses go into politics in their own right, I see no reason to exclude their campaign activities from consideration.

2) In the case of potential First Ladies, it's also worth recalling that the First Lady is the de facto ranking American social host. Anything she does will reflect on the United States, for better or for ill. So, yes, it's worth scrutinizing how Mrs. McCain and Mrs. Obama comport themselves on the campaign trail.

Finally, a word about children. In general, I agree that offspring generally shouldn't be subjected to the same media glare as their parents. In particular, juvenile offspring, I think, should be mostly off limits. But when you're talking about adult offspring, particularly those who have made political or business careers for themselves ... again, their business connections need to be examined as part of "vetting" a candidate. Particularly if those offspring thrust themselves into the campaign limelight.

--|PW|--

Is hyperbotox lee lee in another form?

PennyWit,
Exactly. Chelsea Clinton, when her father ran for office, should have been off limits to 99% of commentary and punditry. When her mother was running and Chelsea took the stage to give speeches (and was also an adult with her own career), the gloves should have come off.

Of course you're absolutely right. However, one would think that conservatives would approve of Chelsea Clinton. An example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/1648442.stm

Takes some cajones, doing that at Oxford. Also, she's pretty cute.

Two negative votes for pointing out that Chelsea Clinton is unabashedly patriotic and won't take shit from left-wing Europeans? Hilarious!

Two negative votes for the insinuation, "However, one would think..." - as if somehow "conservatives don't approve of Chelsea Clinton," with an example of something she did 7 years ago.

This implies too that because Nancy Pelosi visited the Dalai Lama and expressed her support, "one would think" conservatives would approve of her.

There's a major distinction between approving of a person as a whole and approving of one action by that person.

I don't take issue with Chelsea Clinton. Most people don't. So your random shot there didn't even come close to the mark. When you take subtle pot shots like that, it's no wonder you offend. "One would think" this wouldn't have to be pointed out to you. This kind of, sometimes obvious and sometimes subtle, snidery is so integral to many of your arguments and so intricately woven in, you don't even see them yourself.

Snidery--good word! I guess SCSI saying that "the gloves should have come off" when Chelsea became a public figure was my impetus for the "One would think..." prefix. And there's absolutely no analogy whatsoever with Nancy Pelosi, who is an elected official and representative of the United States. Chelsea Clinton is neither of those things.

Cite something Chelsea has said or done that runs afoul of facts, Oyster.

Hyper, maybe you should ask SCSI to cite something. I just said I had no issue with Chelsea Clinton. My analogy was not related to family members delving into politics. It was to demonstrate the fallacy of your reasoning that someone should approve of someone else based on one action by that person.